BUILDING STRONG®

ASFPM FEMA/USACE Levee Discussion From Inspections to LAMP – What it Means to You June 2013 Presenters:

Tammy Conforti, USACE Bill Blanton, FEMA Jim Murphy, RAMPP

BUILDING STRONG®

2

Today’s Agenda The levee challenge & our objectives for this discussion Session Format – How we are going to do this Major Areas to be covered

►FEMA & the USACE roles related to levees ►The USACE/FEMA Task Force

• Can results from inspections, screenings and risk assessments be used for certification?

• Is the National Levee Database (NLD) a good tool to share information?

►LAMP – the new Levee Analysis and Mapping Process ►Impact of the NAS report on levees and the NFIP

BUILDING STRONG®

3

A Snapshot of the Levee Challenge The nation has thousands

of miles of levees. Over 1/4 of the counties

in the US have levees. ASCE gave a report card

grade of “D-” to levees. Levees are aging and

more stuff is being put behind them Citizens living behind levees assume they are safe from

flooding.

BUILDING STRONG®

4

This Levee Session’s Objective Discuss some of the USACE’s

and FEMA’s joint efforts on programs such as: ►The USACE/FEMA Task Force ►NLD – National Levee

Database ►“LAMP”

Provide a forum that encourages you to ask questions and provide feedback.

BUILDING STRONG®

5

Format for Today’s Discussion Step #1 – Facilitator provides a

“question/comment” Step #2 – FEMA & USACE

panelists provide a prepared response Step #3 – Audience comments/

expands on question/response Step #4 – Panelists may provide

additional responses Intermittent Step #5 – Facilitator

asks questions of the audience

BUILDING STRONG®

6

Question #1 For many communities, levee certification/accreditation is

their main concern. Many stakeholders are confused about the roles of FEMA and the USACE related to levees. The differences between USACE levee safety activities and the analysis required to meet the requirements of 44 CFR 65.10 remain unclear to many stakeholders. Stakeholders continue to expect that USACE inspection or screening activities can lead directly to an accreditation decision for the NFIP. What are FEMA’s and the USACE’s respective

missions/roles related to levees?

BUILDING STRONG®

FEMA Responsibilities

7

Mitigation Any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects.

Recovery Putting a community

back together after a disaster

Preparedness Getting people and equipment ready to quickly and effectively respond to a disaster before it happens

Response Saving life and property during and immediately after a disaster

BUILDING STRONG®

8

FEMA’s Role in Levees Present flood hazard and risk

information Establish appropriate risk

zone determinations Establish mapping standards Accredit levee systems on

FIRMs Produce outreach and

communication materials Explain risk of living with

levees

BUILDING STRONG®

9

How Does an Owner Get a Levee System Accredited?

Follow FEMA Procedure Memorandum (PM) No. 63, issued 09/02/2010, to demonstrate compliance with 44 CFR 65.10

BUILDING STRONG®

10

How Does an Owner Get a Levee System Accredited? (cont)

PM 63 includes a checklist to determine if all of the required elements of 44 CFR 65.10 are included in accreditation submittal: ►Design criteria:

• Freeboard, Closure, Embankment Protection and Foundation Stability, Settlement, Interior Drainage, Other Criteria (as needed)

►Operation Criteria: • Flood Warning System, Plan of Operation, Periodic Operation of

Closures, Interior Drainage Plan ►Maintenance Criteria:

• Documented in an officially adopted plan including inspection frequency and responsibilities

BUILDING STRONG®

USACE Authorities Related to Levees

Project specific authorizations Continuing authorities to address studies, modifications, and

technical assistance Public Law (P.L.) 84-99: Disaster preparedness, advance

measures, emergency operations, and rehabilitation (also known as the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program or RIP) Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (amended)

requires that a written agreement with a non-federal sponsor, including operation and maintenance requirements. (Inspection of Completed Works Program) WRDA 2007, National Levee Safety Act

11

BUILDING STRONG®

USACE Levee Safety Program Mission

Work with stakeholders to assess, communicate, reduce and then manage the residual risks to people, the economy, and the environment from inundation associated with the presence of levee systems.

BUILDING STRONG®

13

BUILDING STRONG®

14

USACE Levee Portfolio Risk Management

Risk informed Extensive stakeholder

involvement Urgency of actions

commensurate with risk

BUILDING STRONG®

15

Question #1 Follow-up Audience comments and or Questions Panelist responses

BUILDING STRONG®

16

Question #2 So what are you doing to align your respective missions & roles related to levees? – specifically related to certification and accreditation

BUILDING STRONG®

17

FEMA-USACE Task Force (MAP-21)

Through Section 100226, FEMA and USACE are: …directed to convene a joint task force with USACE to “better align information and data collected” under ICW with NFIP levee accreditation so that

1. Data can be used interchangeably. 2. Information collected for ICW is sufficient

to satisfy accreditation.

BUILDING STRONG®

18

Principles Life safety will not be compromised Ensure timely communication of information

(transparency) Ensure local communities/sponsors continue to have a

lead role in submitting a NFIP accreditation package Mutually beneficial to both USACE and FEMA activities Consider big picture recommendations – changes to 44

CFR 65.10

BUILDING STRONG®

19

Challenges NFIP maps focus on the 1-percent-

annual-chance flood USACE focus on overall levee risk Implementation in the context of both

programs evolving (ripple effect, schedules) Partial certifications and submittals Agencies have different authorities

BUILDING STRONG®

20

Levee sponsors and communities have a key leadership role in ensuring a levee is properly operated and maintained, implementing emergency response activities, and making floodplain management decisions

BUILDING STRONG®

21

Why a USACE Levee Inspection ≠ Accreditation for the NFIP?

Visual Inspection No engineering analyses, including

hydraulic modeling performed Focus on condition to top of levee

regardless of design level (100 year or 1% is used for the NFIP) Inspection information informs the NFIP

BUILDING STRONG®

22

Why a USACE Levee Screening ≠ Accreditation for the NFIP?

Screenings look at performance from a levee safety perspective – not just the 1% Screenings are a screening level

assessment based on best available information Level of rigor of analysis will not allow for

an accreditation decision for all NFIP criteria

BUILDING STRONG®

What USACE levee activity can result in an NFIP accreditation

decision?

23

Risk Assessments

BUILDING STRONG®

How Likely is it that the

Hazard (flood,

earthquake) will Occur?

The USACE Risk Framework

How Will the Infrastructure

Perform during this

Hazard?

What are the Consequences for Non-Performance?

Levee System: Loss of life is of paramount concern.

Economic and environmental losses are also important.

24

BUILDING STRONG®

25

BUILDING STRONG®

26

Who gets a Risk Assessment? Current Approach: 1. In support of planning studies 2. High risk areas 3. Based on available funding Not every levee in the portfolio will get a risk assessment. Will be conducting very few each year. Where a risk assessment is conducted will likely not coincide with an accreditation need.

BUILDING STRONG®

27

Question #2 Follow-up Any concerns or thoughts on the risk

assessment approach for accreditation? Other audience comments and or

Questions Panelist responses

BUILDING STRONG®

28

Audience Feedback #1 Does having the USACE provide

“partial” data towards certification have value? When should this data (both positive

and negative) be supplied to FEMA? ►Always ►Only when the status changes ►Only when requested by the sponsor

BUILDING STRONG®

29

Question #3 How will the USACE share their results with FEMA, and how can communities and levee owners access the data to help them with their certification efforts?

BUILDING STRONG®

USA

CE

Accreditation Request Data

Spon

sor/

FEM

A

Accreditation Request Package

Submission

Scenario 1: Inspection Data

Scenario 2: Screening Data

Scenario 3: Risk Assessment Data

PROPOSED ALIGNMENT DATA CONTRIBUTION

Inspections + Screenings + Risk Assessment

BUILDING STRONG®

31

National Levee

Database

Levee Inspections

Visual Inspection/Annual

Levee Screenings

Risk Assessments Tailored to Decision

Special Inspections

Post Flood

Rehabilitation or Repair

FEMA’s Mid-term Levee

Inventory and other sources

BUILDING STRONG®

Data Integration Goals Identify key aspects of data management and exchange

to develop a data management portfolio centered on National Levee Database (NLD). ►Each agency can develop a platform that meets the specific

needs of their mission while sharing data in support of the other.

Efforts continue to improve the overall ease and accessibility of the NLD to end users, including non-agency stakeholders Develop a Memorandum of Understanding

BUILDING STRONG®

33

Question #3 Follow-up Audience comments and or Questions Panelist responses

BUILDING STRONG®

34

Audience Feedback #2 Have you had a chance to use the

NLD? Would it be useful to you have this

type of data available to you on the NLD?

BUILDING STRONG®

35

Question #4 If we cannot get our levee certified, how will FEMA now analyze and map non-accredited levees?

BUILDING STRONG®

Revising the Former Levee Analysis and Mapping Approach

February 2011 Congressional request to discontinue “without levee” approach

March 2011 FEMA commences review of the “without levee” approach: LAMP

July 2012 Congress passed the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act

Today Considering the “without levee” analysis and mapping approach as a part of the ongoing NFIP Reform

BUILDING STRONG®

Flood Hazard Maps and Former Approach

When a levee was found to be in compliance with 44CFR65.10, the flood hazard was mapped to be contained within the levee system.

However, areas with non-accredited levees were mapped as if the levee system provided no flood hazard reduction (“without levee” approach).

BUILDING STRONG®

How FEMA Developed the New Approach?

Suspended in-progress studies and revisions of non-accredited levee systems. Sought an approach that would:

►Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements ►Be cost-effective, repeatable, and flexible ►Leverage local input, knowledge, and data ►Align available resources

Convened a multidisciplinary project team to evaluate technical options for non-accredited levee systems. Sought and implemented feedback:

► Independent Scientific Body and Community Roundtable ►Public Review ►National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

BUILDING STRONG®

Multidisciplinary Project Team

►FEMA convened a multidisciplinary project team to evaluate technical options for non-accredited levee systems – members represented:

►FEMA ►U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ►Experts from academia and engineering

communities The FEMA-led team:

►Explored possible approaches ►Conducted proof of concept case studies ►Assessed the feasibility of each procedure ►Sought feedback from various stakeholders

BUILDING STRONG®

Public Review Posted a public review document to the Federal Register

Notice, (76 FR 78015) from December 15, 2011 until January 30, 2012 to generate feedback FEMA held three public online forums

►Walk participants through the public review document ►Provide clarification ►Answer questions

BUILDING STRONG®

Public Review (cont)

FEMA received hundreds of comments that influenced the approach in various ways, including:

►Applicability of the New Process ►Definition of a Levee and Non-

Levee ►Embankment Issues ►Local Input ►Levee Reaches ►Document Structure

BUILDING STRONG®

Overview of the New Levee Analysis and Mapping

FEMA is replacing the former levee analysis and mapping approach with a suite of alternative procedures.

►The following suite of new procedures have undergone an extensive process of scientific review and public input

►Sound Reach ►Freeboard Deficient ►Overtopping ►Structural-Based Inundation ►Natural Valley

BUILDING STRONG®

Sound Reach Procedure Levee reach designed, constructed, and maintained to withstand and reduce the flood hazard posed by a 1-percent- annual-chance flood event.

BUILDING STRONG®

Freeboard Deficient Procedure Applies to levee reaches that do not meet the freeboard requirements outlined in Title 44 CFR 65.10.

BUILDING STRONG®

Overtopping Procedure Can be used for levee systems, or portions of a levee system, where the crest of the levee is below the 1-percent-annual-chance flood elevation.

BUILDING STRONG®

Structural-Based Inundation Procedure

Applies to reaches that do not meet the structural standards outlined in Title 44 CFR 65.10 but may still provide a measure of flood risk reduction.

BUILDING STRONG®

Natural Valley Procedure Refers to the river channel and floodplain of a river system or coastal area prior to the addition of flood control structures and construction of levees – can be applied to one or more reaches in the levee system or the entire system.

BUILDING STRONG®

Summary of Reaches

Don’t know anything about Not maintained No owner No structural analysis

Natural Valley Procedure

Barely overtops & is armored: community chooses to do extra evaluation for overtopping

Overtops but not armored

Has required freeboard

Overtopping Procedure

Structural-Based Inundation Procedure

Sound Reach Procedure

BUILDING STRONG®

Hallmarks of the New Approach Increase Coordination and

Engagement with Stakeholders Establish Local Levee Partnership

Team Acknowledge Uncertainty with

Zone D Subdivide Systems into Levee

Reaches Model and Map Levee Reaches

with Suite of Technical Procedures

49

BUILDING STRONG®

How FEMA Will Use the New Approach

FEMA will use the new approach to produce: ►FIRMS ►Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) Report ►Related Products for communities and tribes impacted by

non-accredited levee system Goals of the new Approach

►Identify more refined flood hazards associated with the non-accredited levee systems for the 1% annual chance flood

►Reflect the results in FIRMs and related products

BUILDING STRONG®

51

Question #4 Follow-up Audience comments and or Questions Panelist responses

BUILDING STRONG®

52

QUESTION #5 Recently the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) came out with recommendations related to levees and the NFIP. How will that impact this new “LAMP” approach and will FEMA still implement “LAMP”?

BUILDING STRONG®

National Academy of Sciences Report

BUILDING STRONG®

54

In March 2013, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences released the “Levees and the National Flood Insurance Program: Improving Policies and Practices” (NAS Report).

BUILDING STRONG®

55

LAMP and the NAS Report LAMP will be implemented, and represents an important first step towards addressing many of the conclusions and recommendations of the report: ►Moving Towards a Modern Risk Analysis ► Improving Flood Risk Awareness ►Recognizing Uncertainty in Flood Risk ►Supporting Locally-Tailored Risk Management Strategies ►Communicating Flood Risk behind Levees ►Synchronizing Methodologies with the USACE ►Developing a Consistent Federal Message

BUILDING STRONG®

Continued Evolution

Work on longer term levee issues

Periodically issue

operating guidance and

standards

Provide communities with a clearer idea of their

role

Emerging information

and guidance will affect the future of the

Approach

BUILDING STRONG®

57

Evaluating the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

Opportunity for more comprehensive alignment between USACE and FEMA rests with future fundamental reform efforts

BUILDING STRONG®

58

Question #5 Follow-up Audience comments and or Questions Panelist responses

BUILDING STRONG®

59

Audience Feedback #3 FEMA and the USACE are concerned with public safety and the increasing flood risks associated with accredited levees; should the following be required for certification: Flood warning, preparedness and evacuation plans

be required? Public communication about the risk? Stronger floodplain management to reduce potential

consequences? Mandatory insurance, which would also

communicates risk? Premiums could be risk based. Is the 1% Annual Chance Event for accreditation still appropriate?

BUILDING STRONG®

Questions/Comments ???

60